And the fact that the artillery(and the navy) is way better at deploying standoff range munitions then any fighter will ever be is a big part of the F-35 problem. Is it’s designed to do a job the artillery is better.

The problem here is that the one role where manned planes still makes sense is the high risk low altitude visual range infantry support role the Air Force brass don’t like as it means they ave to plan for the same kind of casualty rates as the infantry tend to sustain.

In a lot of ways that unwillingness to put infantry first is why the us have not had a independent military success since the horse mounted cavalry went obsolete.[1]

1: The two wold wars don’t count as the us general staff was not in charge of strategy in any of those conflicts.

> > ship-launched cruise missiles for ground attacks.

> Ship launched cruise missiles for close air support? I'm skeptical.

Perhaps you should be skeptical, but that's not at all what adrr said...

A part of the F-35's ground attack mission includes close air support. Of course, the F-35 also has massive drawbacks there as well.

In terms of force projection, it's the ability to shut down the enemy's close air support while providing it to your side which is part of the whole point of air superiority.